DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Detecting Object Entry Into Target Area Based On Number Of Macro-Block Motion Vectors
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Entry detection unit in claims 1-15;
Identification information generation unit in claims 2-12;
Holding unit of claim 7; and
Target object detection area generation unit of claim 13.
Each of these claim elements use the nonce term “unit”, are purely functionally defined, devoid of structure and do not denote structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as follows:
Claim 17 recites “A program causing a computer to execute an entry detection procedure of detecting, based on identification information being information about a part of an object in a detection target area as a target area for detection of the object, entry of the object into the detection target area.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 17 is directed to a program per se. In more detail, the “causing a computer to execute” does not actually require any structural limitation. Moreover, “a program” does not itself indicate or require any structure. As such, this claim has no physical or tangible form and thus do not fall within any statutory category.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is a single means claim reciting a single means, namely the “entry detection unit”. See 112(f) interpretation above. As per MPEP 2164.08(a) and In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983), a single means claim covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated purpose of “detect[ing, based on identification information being information about a part of an object in a detection target area as a target area for detection of the object, entry of the object into the detection target area”. As in Hyatt, the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor while the claim covers every conceivable structure (means) for achieving the stated property (result, quoted above). As such, claim 1 is not enabled.
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the identification information generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud in the detection target area image as the identification information, and the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of the generated three-dimensional point clouds.”
The corresponding disclosure is Fig. 1 point cloud unit 101, [00325], Fig. 8 including count number of point clouds step S113, described in [0058] of the published instant application. These sections merely parrot the claim language without providing any substantive detail whatsoever as to how the point clouds are counted. Indeed, the point cloud generation unit 120, as per [0033] generates a single point cloud that is a 3D digital representation of the region detected by the imaging sensor. As such it is wholly unclear what is meant by counting the number of point clouds or otherwise detecting entry based on the number of the generated point clouds. Further there is no process, method, or structure that describes in any level of detail beyond claim parroting describing how the number of point clouds may be determined or even how plural point clouds are generated. Further confusing the issue is the unclear language which states “generat[ing] a three-dimensional point cloud” which clearly uses the singular form and then somehow, without any disclosed guidance, detect entry based on the number of the generated point clouds.
Claim 5 exacerbates the disclosure insufficiency issue by reciting “wherein the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of three-dimensional point clouds included in a predetermined distance range, of the generated three- dimensional point clouds.”. The specification merely states “note that the point cloud count unit 101 is capable of counting the number of point clouds included within a predetermined distance range of the three-dimensional point cloud”. Mere alleged capability is woefully insufficient and does not provide the level of detail necessary to demonstrate possession of the claimed inventive concepts to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 depends from claims 4 and 5. While a threshold comparison is understood claim 6 relies upon inadequately disclosed determination of the number of generated three-dimensional point clouds. Claim 7 depends from claim 6 and thus inherits all of the deficiencies above for claims 6, 5, and 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 confusingly recites “An image processing device comprising an entry detection unit that detects, based on identification information being information about a part of an object in a detection target area as a target area for detection of the object, entry of the object into the detection target area.” This claim language is, at best, obtuse and reflects a poor translation into the English language. The “identification information” is recited as “being information about a part of an object in a detection target area” but then haphazardly throws in “as a target area for detection of the object”. As such, it is unclear if the awkwardly translated “identification information” is the “target area for detection of the object” or whether the “information about a part of the object” is the target area. Moreover, “target area for detection” appears to be intended use and is not clearly tied to “the detection target area” such that the latter term has no antecedent basis.
As best as can be understood claim 1 appears to be directed to detecting an object in a target area of an image while noting that “entry detection unit that detects…entry of the object”” entirely lacks context in that it is unclear what is meant by object “entry” as opposed to object presence such that claim 1, as best as can be understood is indistinguishable from object detection.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the identification information generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud in the detection target area image as the identification information, and the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of the generated three-dimensional point clouds”. This rejection is related to the 112(a) rejection above. Since there is not any information about how the number of generated 3D point points are enumerated or even distinguish from the single point cloud of the scene, the scope of this claim is undetermined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Sawai (JP-2017091063-A). A marked-up machine translation of Sawai has been provided with this office action, all cross-references are with respect to this translation and the mark-ups are hereby incorporated by reference to further demonstrate claim mapping.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Sawai discloses an image processing device comprising an entry detection unit that detects, based on identification information being information about a part of an object in a detection target area as a target area for detection of the object, entry of the object into the detection target area
{Figs. 1-3 including image acquisition part 101 (monitoring camera 220) and distance acquisition part 102 (distance measuring device 221), abstract, pgs. 1- disclosing an object detection process including a detection unit 108 that detects entry (intrusion detection) of the object into detection target area (see 2D detection area, Fig. 4 set by 2D area setting unit 103 which is used to determine a 3D detection area by the 3D area setting unit 107. As to image processing device, see Fig. 2, pg. 3, including CPU 201, RAM 202 executing a program stored in ROM 203. See also flowchart method of Fig. 3}.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Sawai discloses
an identification information generation unit that generates the identification information from a detection target area image being an image of the object in the detection target area, wherein the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the generated identification information
{see Figs. 1-3 including image acquisition part 101 (monitoring camera 220) and distance acquisition part 102 (distance measuring device 221, and point group acquisition unit 103 that acquires point group information (identification information) generated from the 3D detection area, pgs. 1-4. Object detection detects intrusion (object entry) based on the generated information}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Sawai discloses wherein the identification information generation unit generates information about a three-dimensional shape of a part of the object as the identification information {see mapping of claim 2 including the point group acquisition unit that generates info re the 3D shape of the object as the “identification information”}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Sawai discloses
wherein the identification information generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud in the detection target area image as the identification information, and the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of the generated three-dimensional point clouds {see the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above. As best as can be understood, detection unit 108 performs object entry detection based on the (number) of 3D target positions existing within the 3D detection region using any of the disclosed methods such as the crossing number algorithm. See also intrusion detection unit 109 that uses the number of pixel label data indicating objects location in, entering or leaving/outside the detection area), pgs. 6-7 which counts intruder pixels such that when the count value exceeds a first predetermined number, it is determined that the object has entered the object detection area.}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Sawai discloses wherein the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of three-dimensional point clouds included in a predetermined distance range, of the generated three- dimensional point clouds.
{see above mapping for claim 4 while noting that the user sets a 2D detection area S102 on the monitor 212 as shown in Fig. 4(a) (copied below) which is then translated into a 3D detection area, Fig. 4(b) including vertices V1-V4 that establish a predetermined distance range from which object entry detection is performed
PNG
media_image1.png
934
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Sawai discloses wherein the entry detection unit detects the entry by comparing the number of the generated three-dimensional point clouds with a predetermined threshold {see claim 4 mapping including crossing number algorithm and intrusion detection unit 109 that uses the number of pixel label data indicating objects location in, entering or leaving/outside the detection area, pgs. 6-7 which counts intruder pixels such that when the count value exceeds a predetermined threshold (first predetermined number), it is determined that the object has entered the object detection area.}
Claim 7
In regards to claim 7, Sawai discloses a holding unit that holds the predetermined threshold {Detection is specifically disclosed as including comparing a count value with a “first predetermined number” while noting that the disclosed technical environment includes a computer processor with memory such that the memory is used to hold or otherwise store the predetermined threshold value for the object detection performed by intrusion detection unit 109 and detection step S303, pgs. 7-8}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Sawai discloses
wherein the identification information generation unit generates a specific area of the detection target area image, as the identification information, and
the entry detection unit detects the entry based on a size of the generated specific area.
{see mapping for claim 1 where the specific area corresponds to the area (intruder pixels) detected by the intrusion detection unit 109, pgs. 7-9, wherein the number of intruder pixels corresponds to the size of the specific area such that the system detects entry based on the size (number of intruder pixels) of the of the specific area}.
Claim 12
In regards to claim 12, Sawai discloses a sensor that generates the detection target area image, wherein the identification information generation unit generates the identification information from the detection target area image generated by the sensor {see mapping of claim 1 including sensor [image acquisition part 101 (monitoring camera 220) and distance acquisition part 102 (distance measuring device 221)}
Claims 16 and 17
The rejection of device claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of method claim 16 and computer program claim 17 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures as well as program implementations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai and Sakaguchi (JP-2020160890-A). A marked-up machine translation of Sakaguchi has been provided with this office action, all cross-references are with respect to this translation and the mark-ups are hereby incorporated by reference to further demonstrate claim mapping.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Sawai is not relied upon to disclose the macro-block motion vector object detection recited therein.
Sakaguchi is analogous art from the same field of object detection and solves an analogous problem of using motion to detect objects. See title, abstract, pg. 1 and cites below.
Sakaguchi also teaches wherein the identification information generation unit divides the detection target area image into macro blocks and generates a motion vector for each of the macro blocks obtained by dividing, as the identification information, and the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of the generated motion vectors
{video (moving image) from camera 10 includes image frames that are divided into macro-blocks by encoder 24, pgs. 3-4.
Moving object detection device 20 performs entry detection, determining whether a vehicle is parked in a detection target area (parking zone Pa). Vector acquisition unit 25 acquires motion vectors 51 which are used by detection unit 26 to perform (moving) object detection. As to “based on the number of generated motion vectors”, see Fig. 3, pgs. 4-5 including counting unit 262 that counts motion vectors 51 (satisfying an extraction condition) that are used by detection determination unit 264 to detect the object. See also Fig. 4}.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Sawai which already performs entry detection (object detection) based on object presence in a target detection area such that the object detection also includes motion information wherein the identification information generation unit divides the detection target area image into macro blocks and generates a motion vector for each of the macro blocks obtained by dividing, as the identification information, and the entry detection unit detects the entry based on the number of the generated motion vectors as taught by Sakaguchi because such motion information provides a reliable basis to increase the accuracy of object entry detection, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13
In regards to claim 13, Sawai is not relied upon to disclose but Sakaguchi teaches a target object detection area generation unit that generates a target object detection area being information about an area of the object the entry of which is detected {see detection determination unit 263 and connection area detection unit that generates a target object detection area (connection area) which is information about an area of object for which entry is detected}.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Sawai which already performs entry detection (object detection) based on object presence in a target detection area such that the object detection also includes a target object detection area generation unit that generates a target object detection area being information about an area of the object the entry of which is detected as taught by Sakaguchi because doing so ensure more accurate object detection by included region area information and connectedness determinations as also motivated by Sakaguchi, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai and Sakaguchi as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Chen {Chen LC, Nguyen TH. A Novel Surface Descriptor for Automated 3-D Object Recognition and Localization. Sensors (Basel). 2019 Feb 13;19(4):764. doi: 10.3390/s19040764. PMID: 30781842; PMCID: PMC6412728}.
Claims 14 and 15
Sawai is not relied upon to disclose (claim 14) wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates an image including the object, as the target object detection area or (claim 15) wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud including the object, as the target object detection area.
Chen is analogous art from the same field of object detection (segmentation) and solves an analogous problem of using 3D point cloud to detect and segment objects. See title, abstract, and cites below.
Chen also teaches wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates an image including the object, as the target object detection area and wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud including the object, as the target object detection area, from a 3D point cloud and generates a three-dimensional point cloud (or a 3D point cloud image including the object), as the target object detection area
{see abstract, section 2 Methodology, Fig. 1 in which a point cloud is processed to detect and segment 3D objects to generate a target object detection area (3D position and orientation of the target object or the individual, segmented object point clouds such as the bounding boxes of Fig. 4-5}.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified the base combination of Sawai and Sakaguchi which already performs entry detection (object detection) based on object presence in a target detection area such that the object detection using point clouds such that wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates an image including the object, as the target object detection area and wherein the target object detection area generation unit generates a three-dimensional point cloud including the object, as the target object detection area, from a 3D point cloud and generates a three-dimensional point cloud (or a 3D point cloud image including the object), as the target object detection area as taught by Nguyen because doing so aids in the matching/classifying the detected objects as motivated, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawai and Lim (US 2012/0106791 A1).
Claims 10 and 11
Sawai is not relied upon to disclose the color-based object detection recited in claim 10 or the brightness-based object detection recited in claim 11.
Lim is analogous art from the same field of object detection and solves an analogous problem of using various image features to detect objects. See abstract, Figs. 3-6 and cites below.
Lim also teaches wherein the identification information generation unit generates an area of a specific color as the specific area {see Fig. 3, object detecting unit 31, depth determination unit 32, and texture determination unit 35; Fig. 6 determine texture similarity step S33-S35 which sets the specific area (detects and consolidate via unified labeling of objects having color similarity in addition to depth continuity, while noting texture includes color and brightness, [0037]. [0062]-[0071]}.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to have modified Sawai which already performs entry detection (object detection) based on object presence in a target detection area such that the object detection also includes color and/or brightness features and such that wherein the identification information generation unit generates an area of a specific color as the specific area and wherein the identification information generation unit generates an area of a specific brightness as the identification information as taught by Lim because including such texture feature in the object detection process increasing the accuracy and reliability of the object detection as motivated by Lim in [0063]-[0071], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights